Anti-war activists demand: No U.S. troops to the Balkans!

By Gary Wilson, Workers World, 7 December 1995

What is the most revealing aspect of the Bosnia accord
announced Nov. 21? Its terms are almost the same as two
previous agreements the United States opposed.

The only significant difference in this agreement is that
it will be implemented by a U.S.-led military force, not a
European-led one.

That means the reality--for all President Bill Clinton's
talk of "peace keeping" and protecting small, beleaguered
nations in his Nov. 27 television address--is that the U.S.
government is once again preparing to send troops to occupy
another country.

Regardless of any public posturing by Republican or even
some Democratic politicians, troops will be sent--because it
serves the interests of U.S. big business.

This is raw imperialism.

Leaders in the anti-war movement say it requires a
vigorous response. Richard Becker of the International
Action Center said his group will fight the intervention
"with a national campaign of education and protest."

Becker called the president's speech "an exercise in
deceit, deception and hypocrisy." He said, "The billions of
dollars earmarked for this latest military adventure should
be used to fund education, health care, food and housing
programs that are so desperately needed."

WASHINGTON BLOCKED EARLIER PEACE

With the dismemberment of Yugoslavia already begun under
pressure from U.S. and Western European imperialist
interests, Bosnia's future became a central issue.

It was the most multi-ethnic of the Yugoslav republics.
The population was clearly split over the issue of breaking
away and creating a separate country.

Finally on March 18, 1992, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims
had agreed to terms dividing Bosnia in a way similar to the
Dayton plan. That was the Cutileiro Plan, named for
Portuguese diplomat Jose Cutileiro, who was the European
Union's negotiator in Sarajevo.

The 1992 agreement was made before a civil war had
erupted. The agreement fell apart when Washington indicated
it was prepared to recognize Bosnia as an independent
country broken off from Yugoslavia.

This was a signal to the regime of Alija Izetbegovic,
which then canceled the agreement.

A year later, on May 2, 1993, the so-called Vance-Owen
plan was accepted by the Serb, Croatian and Muslim leaders.
It was named for former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance
and former British Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, who
represented the United Nations and the European Union
respectively. It was similar to the Cutileiro Plan.

According to Lord Owen, Washington undermined the
agreement and blocked its adoption.

A Nov. 23 New York Times report on the Dayton agreement
made a veiled reference to this background: "One former
European negotiator commented then, 'If the United States
had supported a settlement instead of quietly urging the
Bosnian government to fight on, we could have had peace a
long time ago.'"

What makes this agreement different? The Dayton plan is
under United States military and political control.

It puts the Pentagon and its arm in Europe--NATO--in
charge. And it opens the door to expanding NATO imperialism
into the formerly socialist countries.

REAL SIZE OF INVASION FORCE HIDDEN

Under the terms of the Dayton plan, the Pentagon-commanded
NATO force will be an occupation army. And this force will
for the first time include German troops on the ground in
the former Yugoslavia.

Most details of the NATO force are not being revealed. For
example, news reports say it will number 60,000, with 20,000
to 25,000 coming from the U.S. military.

The truth is it will really be a quarter-million troops
all told. "The 20,000 only refers to forces on the ground in
Bosnia," says Pentagon spokesperson U.S. Army Lt. Col Rick
Scott. (Defense News, Nov. 25)

The actual total will be "anywhere between 150,000 and
240,000 troops" when support personnel and others based
outside Bosnia in Croatia, Macedonia, Albania and Hungary as
well as naval forces in the Adriatic Sea are included,
Defense News reports. How many of these NATO troops will be
from the U.S. is not clear.

Britain says it will have 13,000 troops in the NATO force.
Turkish officers will also be a part of the NATO force--
though not Turkish soldiers, who are tied down in a
genocidal war against the Kurds.

Reuter reported Nov. 27 that "German Chancellor Helmut
Kohl's government is set to agree on Tuesday to send 4,000
soldiers to the Balkans if parliament approves the plan next
week, as expected." These will be the first German
occupation troops in Eastern Europe since World War II.

MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

The terms of the NATO plan are like a reprint out of the
history books of colonial occupation armies.

The New York Times reported Nov. 23, "The agreement gives
the American commander of the alliance force, Adm. Leighton
W. Smith, broad authority." The Times reported that "NATO's
control" will be "tight."

NATO forces will have the "right" to order anyone,
anywhere within Bosnia to do whatever any NATO commander
orders--or face military sanction. It will be a complete
military dictatorship.

"NATO's broad authority," according to the Times, "is seen
by the Serbs as an occupation." And, it should be added, by
all the other peoples of the region, including Croats and
Muslims.

Of course, occupation breeds resistance. There's no reason
to believe the peoples of the region will submit to every
NATO dictate. There will be strong opposition to the U.S.-
led occupation force.

The occupation of Bosnia also opens the road to NATO's
expansion into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Washington is already preparing to set up bases in Hungary
and Albania as part of the NATO operation in Bosnia. Such
bases are not necessary for Bosnia if this is only a
temporary year-long campaign. Existing NATO bases in Italy
and Turkey could easily handle the operation.

Reuter reported Nov. 6, "Bosnia will be split into three
military sectors when NATO forces move in to enforce any
peace agreement, Bosnia's vice president, Ejup Ganic, was
quoted as saying." Ganic said the "country would be divided
between U.S., French and British-administered military
sectors."

Ganic said the French will be headquartered in the city of
Mostar. The British will have their base in the town of
Split. And U.S. troops will be headquartered in Tuzla.

While some have compared these zones of control to Berlin
during the Cold War, a more accurate comparison might be
with the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. The Treaty of Berlin
divided the Ottoman Empire among the European Powers,
principally Britain and Austria-Hungary.

It partitioned the Balkans into a melee of petty states
that could not develop beyond a certain limit. Each was
helpless in relation to the Great Powers of Europe, as they
were then called.

One of the treaty's goals was to open the Balkans to
unimpeded access for European capital.

What's different today is that the goal also includes
dismantling whatever remains socialist in Yugoslavia.

SERBS DEFEND SOCIALISM

While Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Macedonia have been
quick to "privatize" socialist industry, the two remaining
Yugoslav republics--Serbia and Montenegro--have not.

On Nov. 16, Mirjana Markovic, a leader of the Yugoslav
United Left movement (JUL), denounced "free-market reforms."
Markovic is also married to Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic.

According to a Nov. 17 Reuter report, Markovic said: "We
support only those changes in ownership relations which
enable the majority of people to live better.

"Changes which have been carried out in Eastern European
countries with regard to ownership have brought a certain
number of members of society into a position to live better
than before. But this number is an exceptionally small
minority."

In response to a call for extensive "privatization" made
by Yugoslav central bank governor Dragoslav Avramovic,
Markovic said "her political movement would not budge from
its defense of 'social ownership,'" Reuter reported.

"JUL will be very firm in this commitment, and perhaps in
the next few months even unpleasant."

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are
reportedly demanding privatization as a condition for fully
lifting the U.S.-initiated embargo against Yugoslavia.
Otherwise, there may be no bank loans offered to offset the
staggering debt and impoverishment brought on by the
embargo.